Seems like they really want regulatory control of the internet. Since 2006, these three entities – Google, George Soros’ Open Society Institution
and the Ford Foundation – have contributed more than $72 million to non-profit leftist organizations that have been most active in promoting the
idea the Internet needs to be regulated by the government.

Well, not surprising, they have wanted their hands in it for years. Links and information below:

Close to 20% of all pro-net neutrality comments filed were made in which either the filers’ names were being submitted with the email address of an
obviously different person or in which the same email address was used to file multiple comments – in some cases thousands of times.

“The full breadth of the fake comments at this point is not known. But based on an initial forensic analysis, we believe it is massive,” NLPC
President Peter Flaherty said. “Indeed, based on our initial read, almost one fifth (465,322) of all pro-net neutrality comments submitted into the
docket appear to have come from email addresses that have made multiple submissions, sometimes with duplicates in the thousands. At least 100,000 more
comments from an Electronic Frontier Foundation Net Neutrality comment campaign appear to have been generated using both fake email and fake physical
addresses and perhaps even fake names.”

The organization also suspected the potentially feigned support for net neutrality by browsing through 100,148 comments and deciphering that they all
contained a suspiciously large portion of language that was used in the EFF’s submission platform. The EFF, though, offers “rotating variables”
meaning there are options for certain words to make the comments look different.

“The FCC should [reject/throw out] Chairman Ajit Pai’s [plan/proposal] to [give/hand] [the/the government-subsidized] [telecom giants/ISP
monopolies]…” reads the EFF’s template for public comment, according to the NLPC’s screenshot. The submission platform also gives options for
which corporations to call out and in what order.

The NLPC alleges that the EFF subtly changes its rotating variables once the web page is refreshed.

“Gaming a regulatory rulemaking in this way is highly deceptive and completely undermines the integrity of the public comment process. More
troubling, the potential privacy breach of knowingly using other people’s email addresses without their permission to submit comments would be
unprecedented,” Flaherty continued. “If our independent forensics analysis confirms that the deception is as extensive as the initial analysis
indicates, we will submit our report to Congress and urge them to conduct a full and thorough investigation.”

The EFF supports Net Neutrality, as they flooded pro NN comments. Interesting because it appears they are countering the comments that were
fraudulently posted Anti NN. Doesn't mean I support acting the same to counter the disinfo but perhaps there's a reason for it. The comment section
is bogged down by Anti NN fraud as it is.

As noted in TheDCNF’s original report, fake “anti-net neutrality” comments also made their way on the forum as more than 128,000
identical posts under different names were discovered, according to ZDNet.

Op source

See this:
"7,000-plus Coloradans’ names, addresses used to post fake comments about government
decision"-www.abovetopsecret.com...

The far left want only what they believe to be true on the net. They would definitely restrict opposing opinions if they had their way. They twist
and distort things to make things look how they want them to.

The far right does distort things but not as bad as the far left does. Also, the right in general looks at preserving personal rights. Not the far
left as most people have been led to believe. I used to believe that the liberals were for truth and personal rights, but after reading many articles
I found I was believing a lie.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The far left want only what they believe to be true on the net. They would definitely restrict opposing opinions if they had their way. They twist
and distort things to make things look how they want them to.

The far right does distort things but not as bad as the far left does. Also, the right in general looks at preserving personal rights. Not the far
left as most people have been led to believe. I used to believe that the liberals were for truth and personal rights, but after reading many articles
I found I was believing a lie.

Okay, so, you're saying what the EFF did is worse than what the Lobbyist(ISPs, more) and RW anti NN is doing with stealing people's names, etc. with
already having flood the net?

Yeah great thread title OP. No ones going to see what's going on here but they will flag in support of Left Wing madness /sarc

The truth of it here guys is removing Net Neutrality will impact this site for the worse as well as many others. In fact there may be no
more... Oh, wait Left Wing is doing something to demean Right Wing!
Yeah, sorry it's more than diversionary party lines to dumb you down. Get off the partisan high horse before it's too late.

but if we remove NN and let corporations control the net, we can then pay to have access to cool sites

Just think of how great it will be to no longer worry about how you gotta google things and stumble across sites...you can just be locked in like your
cable company.
And with Time Warner becoming the big dog on scene, we can finally get only quality flicks, no more of this nonsense youtube and other such amateur
stuff.

Ahh corporations, please save us from all this damned freedom we are cursed with. Yes, remove NN and let walmart decide for me.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I used to believe that the liberals were for truth and personal rights, but after reading many articles I found I was believing a lie.

NN isn't a liberal v conservative thing...at least didn't used to be
It was a wild west v corporatist fight.

Net was developed with tax payer money. It is therefore a free thing for people to use. Not to be given to corporations, unless microsoft can own the
military suddenly.

ISPs can charge what they want for their portal, but they can't section off the backbone. ISPs are your driveway you pay for. the internet is the
roadworks we all contributed to and have equal access to. NN would turn the roadways into corporate ownership and turn it into toll roads for them for
??? reason.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The far left want only what they believe to be true on the net. They would definitely restrict opposing opinions if they had their way. They twist
and distort things to make things look how they want them to.

The far right does distort things but not as bad as the far left does. Also, the right in general looks at preserving personal rights. Not the far
left as most people have been led to believe. I used to believe that the liberals were for truth and personal rights, but after reading many articles
I found I was believing a lie.

Uh no. We far leftists want the internet exactly as it is right now. Not sectioned off and controlled by corporations.

ATS has become nothing more than a pit for political bickering, real topics like net neutrality and the coming automation revolution get roundly
ignored for the opportunity to earn some easy stars and flags

Letting the corporations dig their greedy claws any further into the internet and it's traffic is a terrible idea.

Meanwhile, we see the other side of the spectrum occurring in Europe and Asia.

If you're implying the opposite of preventing corporate control
of the internet itself is totalitarian government regulation, you're wrong.

Any change to the current net neutrality rules is a bad idea. Imagine if the power companies charged you a premium for which devices your electricity
was used for, in addition to what you paid for the power itself. The internet should remain treated much as a public utility as it already is.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The far left want only what they believe to be true on the net. They would definitely restrict opposing opinions if they had their way. They twist
and distort things to make things look how they want them to.

The far right does distort things but not as bad as the far left does. Also, the right in general looks at preserving personal rights. Not the far
left as most people have been led to believe. I used to believe that the liberals were for truth and personal rights, but after reading many articles
I found I was believing a lie.

Uh no. We far leftists want the internet exactly as it is right now. Not sectioned off and controlled by corporations.

When you are against giving the corporations everything they want you become a far leftist. Holy moly!

Pros of net neutrality regulation
•Network neutrality avoids that ISPs charge online services such as XBox Live, Playstation Plus, Skype, and Netflix for "fast lanes". These extra
costs for "fast lanes" are problematic because they can make the services more expensive for internet users and also may prevent small companies from
the capacity to compete with the big companies who have the budget to reach agreements with ISPs.
•Net neutrality avoids discrimination among users ensuring similar access to information for people of different socio-economic status. Without
neutrality, high-speed internet for entertainment could be prioritized over education. And ISPs could change premium fees (“pay-to-play”) to
enjoy special access to public libraries, benefiting the richest people.
•Network neutrality helps to promote freedom of choice, as ISPs cannot obstruct or incentivize particular contents or sites over others.
•Anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules prevent the capacity of ISPs to arbitrary decide to limit access or promote some type of content.The
role of ISPs is to only "transport" data to the users that have paid for delivery, and therefore they should not shape content consumption
patterns.
•Net neutrality promotes a level playing field for competing companies.

Cons of net neutrality regulation
•Regulation imposing net neutrality would limit new business ideas and concepts and could be considered against free market rules.
•Sponsored content and “pay-to-play” schemes may go against the net neutrality spirit, but they can help companies improve the overall service
they offer. Heavier internet users may be charged more. With that extra money ISPs could increase the bandwith for all internet users.
•Thanks to sponsorships some mobile telecom operators may offer free internet access to some contents. This may enable those who don’t have data
contracts on their smartphones to surf some areas in the internet for free. Similarly, it would reduce the consumption of other users’ data
allotments.
•Regulation for net neutrality may limit the tools of governments and ISPs to fight against online “piracy”. Material infringing copyright laws
will be easilty shared using P2P software. ISPs or governments won't be able to block or filter these contents, if net neutrality is fully respeced.
Similarly net neutrality rules make more difficult to monitor and control controversial adult content.
•Some defenders of net neutrality question government intervention. For them it should emerge organically or naturally but not imposed through laws.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.